In 2004, I published a piece with David Armstrong in the American Journal of Political Science which showed that the best way to model as well as understand the impact of democracy on repression is that of a threshold effect. Essentially, there is no impact of democracy on repression until the highest levels have been reached. Unlike all other studies (which did not allow for alternative specifications of the functional form), we allowed for alternatives and found this relationship to be the best. Consequently, we could have found a linear effect or any type of non-linear impact but we did not. Pretty good stuff. Or, so I thought. Despite our decent work, individuals still use a democracy and democracy squared in their models for repression under the now mistaken belief (myth?) that the relationship is what is referred as an "inverted u". Here, it is argued that repression is low in full autocracies and full democracies but that there is "more murder in the middle." Catchy phrase but inaccurate. This raised an interesting question: How does one change a habit in the social sciences? I was of the now mistaken belief that it was most important to pursue the best and most accurate answer. My most cynical side also believed that it was important to do this in one of the most important journals in political science. This does not appear to be the case. What is also important is to establish new habits as well. Where do cannons come from? Kuhn is turning in his grave.

Leave a Reply.

Christian Davenport's Caveat Civis - Citizen Beware

Given the elusive nature of state repression, it is crucial to be constantly aware of information as it becomes available. This is not always easy to do and with the different tactics, perpetrators, locations and victims of domestic spying, torture, arrest, detention, disappearances and mass killing, it is necessary to keep one's eyes open, along with one's mind - Citizen's Beware. The data is out there. We just need to find it and figure out what it means.